Unlike the administration’s previous travel bans, which were intended as temporary measures as homeland security officials were instructed to review vetting procedures, the new restrictions are not time-limited. 

so, if you flip back a few pages, what i argued around the so-called muslim bans was that:

1) they obviously were not "muslim bans" - that argument would fail (and it has failed, because they obviously weren't muslim bans)
2) there was no logical policy connection between a travel ban and public safety, which is the argument they should have presented, and would have actually worked.
3) the information i had in front of me suggested that the president's actions, here, are almost beyond legal scrutiny anyways, so long as the sunset clause exists - all he has to do is cite "national security" and he should basically be permitted to do whatever he wants, so long as it's temporary. basically, you can shut the constitution down for a few weeks, but you can't suspend it altogether.

now, here's the twist: all of the legal battles on the question are surrounding the question of whether it's a muslim ban, which is an unwinnable argument. so, the narrative has constructed itself in a way that makes it seem like expanding it to non-muslim countries will make it harder to fight, as it's now not targetting a specific religion.

except that it was obviously never targetting that religion in the first place, and they were always going to lose those arguments.

if they had presented the correct argument in the first place - which is that there isn't a logical policy objective - this new order would be dead on arrival.

...and it is still the case that this ought to be shut down....

....but, the court process to shut it down has to exist before it can happen, and i see no evidence that this is going to happen.

this is where the rabbit-hole of neoliberalism has brought us to: he will likely get away with exactly the policy that should shut him down, for the precise reason that the opposition has no concept of what the law actually says, because it's been brainwashed with foucauldian drivel.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/sep/25/trump-travel-ban-extended-to-blocks-on-north-korea-and-venezuela